Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Study for Mattaque's site recommends demolition; board flags wastewater and wellhead protection before redevelopment
Summary
Consultants presented three concept designs that trade combinations of sports fields, open space and about 60 housing units; a consultant estimated costs to rehabilitate the existing building would be very high (~$25 million). The board emphasized municipal sewer/wastewater and wellhead protection as prerequisites for redevelopment.
The Planning Board received a status update on the Mattaque's (Mattakee's) utilization committee work, which completed phase 5 and delivered three concept alternatives for the large site. Consultant analysis showed that rehabilitating the existing building — including the gym and auditorium — would be costly, with a rough consultant estimate discussed in the meeting near $25 million, leading the team to prioritize demolition and redevelopment options.
Alternatives shown to the board included: (a) sports complex with four multiuse fields and approximately 60 units of housing (mix of townhouses and small apartment buildings); (b) leaving the school structure in place with housing clustered to the rear and sports facilities on the south side; and (c) demolition of the school with larger sports facilities and varied housing options. Planner Cathy Williams said future phases (6 and 7) will focus on traffic mitigation, wetlands surveying, and financial feasibility, and noted contract signatures for the next phases were expected by month end.
Board members repeatedly emphasized that municipal sewer capacity, wellhead protection, and enhanced stormwater controls are prerequisites for any development, and they asked that the consultants account for drinking‑water protections and PFAS treatment plans when evaluating options. The board also discussed potential phasing so sports facilities could be started sooner if the school disposition took longer to resolve.
The Planning Board did not make a decision; staff said the next consultant phases (12–18 months) will produce a more detailed feasibility analysis and traffic/wetland studies.
